Energy Journalism Nicholas is an Oxford based energy expert with many years experience in the topic providing serices as a freelance journalist, broadcaster, editor and copy writer. I am a freelance energy journalist and member of the Energy Institute. My services include creating bespoke/dedicated/customised media plans for  energy companies... ie.  not an  off- the- shelf solution so typical of advertising and PR companies, write up advertorials/corporate story/project overviews etc.       I also provide primary and secondary research reports and writing for clients. My writing and publications in the last decade have been focused on the energy sector, specifically power generation, oil and gas exploration and production, energy policy and related fiscal, market, risk and technology issues. As you will see from my client list http://www.nicnewmanoxford.com/Clients.html  , my clients include Hart Energy Exploration and Production, Power Engineering International, Cornerstone, energyrealities.org, datamonitor etc.   Customers include both corporate and media clients. Available for commissions on a wide variety of work. Also provides corporate journalism, copy writing and editorial services for business. Oxford Copy writing My Energy Journalism Covers: Energy Leadership & Policy including issues of policy making, market issues and trading. Energy Leadership & Policy Oil Business both upstream and downstream aspects Oil Business Gas Business including pipeline, LNG and shale gas Gas Business Power generation including fueled by coal, gas, hydro, nuclear and renewables   Power Generation Business Mining including coal and uranium and its use. Mining      Nicholas's energy journalism aids decision makers, readers and organizations navigate through the many challenges of the energy sector, it is concerned with the business, markets, risk management, technological, environmental issues, geopolitics and policies. Main assets include Nicholas's ability to turn clients complex, technical and financial stories into compelling narratives. Clients? Clients include those in the press both print and online, business, broadcasters, lobby groups and public relations agencies. For details of some of my customers    For details of copy writing services    For details of energy portfolio  For other topics portfolio For contact details

Some thoughts on Middle East energy journalism   Responsible Energy Leadership Workshops Launched

The end of Gazprom monopoly?

Russia v EU

"Oxford Institute For Energy Studies"

By: Nicholas Newman

Dr Andrey Konoplyanik presenting the Gazprom view about the future of the EU gas market.

Androulla Kaminara giving the European Commission's point of view.

Professor Alan Riley with others

Ashutosh Shastri Enerstrat Consulting and Nicholas Newman Nicnewmanoxford

At Oxford's St.Antony College a panel discussion took place about how the EU and Gazprom view the future development of the European gas market. One thing became clear the importance of European competition law was likely to affect the future of relations between Brussels and Moscow. Also, that hopes that Gazprom would loose its monopoly during the current political cycle in Russia, will have to wait for a decision after the next federal parliamentary elections.
Participants were:
Dr Andrey Konoplyanik, Adviser to Director General, Gazprom Export, Professor, Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Russia’s former Deputy Energy Minister, former Deputy Secretary General, Energy Charter Secretariat. http://www.konoplyanik.ru/
Professor Alan Riley, City University, London, Chair of the European-wide Competition Law Scholars Forum, Co-editor of the Competition Law Review http://www.city.ac.uk/law/about/our-staff/academic-staff/alan-riley
Androulla Kaminara, St Antony’s College, Oxford, former Head of the European Commission Representation in Cyprus, former Director for Quality of Operations of the European Commission’s Directorate General - EuropeAid http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/seesox/kaminara.html

Warsaw Climate Change Conference - November 2013

The Warsaw Climate Change Conference officially opened on 11 November. ...
Korolec, Minister of the Environment of Poland

It is clear that there are high hopes for the UN conference Cop 19 in Warsaw this November. The question facing many onlookers is will this conference turn into just another talking shop. Past climate change talks from Rio onwards, have been hailed as successes, even though they have produced little in the way of visible results. From a climate change point of view, Oxford Economics Professor Dieter Helm regards the past three decades up to 2020 as a ‘waste of time’. Many of the same argument s have been in play, including complaints about the lack of western ambition to cut emissions and aid adaption in the third world, the cost of climate change and the price tag for taking action.

Developing world wants more money.

 

Many emerging countries have made known their disquiet at the lack of ambition of rich nations to aid poor countries in adapting to climate change. The concern, no one is sure how much aid is necessary. The UNFCCC expected that by 2030 deprived nations would require between $28 billion and $59 billion a year to adapt. However, the World Bank recommended between $20 billion and $100 billion; the European Union Commission advocated between $10 billion and $24 billion a year by 2020. Nevertheless, despite climate aid growing, a recent World Bank report suggested it only met 5% of current requirements. http://unfccc.int/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/meeting/7649.php

Nevertheless, providing more cash is not without its problems for developed countries. Due to the world recession, many advanced economies do not have the spare resources available to meet third world countries requirements. In addition, “many developing countries have poor track records in using external assistance funds in transparent, efficient and non-corrupt ways," commented a 2012 paper, Financing Urgent Adaptation by the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum, a non-profit foundation.

As for lack of motivation in cutting emissions, for many rich economies, making adjustments is, a difficult and complex task during a period of economic recession for many rich economies. Part of the problem that developed countries like Britain face is that of inertia, once you have built a coal power station, it is very difficult to close such facility down early, before the end of its operational lifespan. In addition, new energy generating technology often takes at least 50 years before it becomes economically viable.

Cost of climate change

Approximating the cost of climate change is a difficult and complex undertaking, and the assumptions the underlying figures are based are open to interpretation and subsequent dispute. However, according to a study by a European-based NGO called DARA 12^th of September 2012, current failures to act on climate change are damaging global economic growth. DARA puts the cost of climate change at some 1.6% of global GDP, this amount to approximately $1.2 trillion in foregone prosperity per annum. Unless action is taken, it is forecast that the economic damage climate change will have on the global economy could increase to 3.2% of world GDP by 2030. In terms that are, more specific climate change is costing both China and the United States over 2% each of their individual potential GDP and India 5% of its GDP. EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard has said, “Climate change is not a distant threat, but a present danger!”

In 2012, the major weather disasters, including floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes cost the United States over US$110 billion, according to the US National Climate Data Centre. During 2012, this meant a typical major weather disaster was costing the American economy over $1 billion. This compares with the period between 2000 and 2011, when the average yearly cost of such disasters was around US$27 billion. Transport costs using barges have increased by 22% because of draughts affecting US navigable waterways.

Cost of taking action

Determining whether taking action on climate change is viable will depend in part, on how you view the value of currency over time. In other words, what discount rate will you use in your calculations. Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed said.  For instance, if you use a discount rate of just 1% €1000 today is worth €368 in 100 years’ time, whilst making use of a 4% discount rate with me that the same €1000 today would be worth just €18 in 100 years. So as Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed said, “What is possible with $100 billion today will cost ten times more in 2030,” reports Bloomberg 13 February 2013.       

The United Kingdom Parliament Committee on Climate Change report in 2012, known as “statutory advice on inclusion of aviation and shipping,” reported that by 2050, UK emission reductions would cost up to 2% of UK GDP. At present, UK climate policies currently cost 1% of UK GDP. This is the equivalent to the UK’s budget on new social housing and community amenities. In 2010, the British government spent nearly 10% of the U.K.’s GDP on the National Health Service reports the Guardian newspaper second of May 2012.

On a world scale, according to Nicholas Stern, the British economist, author of the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, he projected that preventing climate change would cost the world economy, the equivalent of just 2% of global GDP per annum. Gross World Product was $69.99 trillion in 2011.

Conclusion

It is clear that Cop 19 is part of the World’s on-going debate to tackle climate change.

Why is British Energy Policy led by a bunch of Amateurs?

"Energy comment"

By: Nicholas Newman Energy Journalism
 

Energy has been much in the news recently, including threatened closure of an oil refinery, high energy bills etc. What we are seeing are symptoms of chaos and confusion in British energy policy and markets.  The Grangemouth refinery story for instance has been treated in the media as a simple industrial relations story. However, what is being ignored is the larger story, that the European refinery industry is in trouble, due to competition from abroad caused in part by the US shale gas and oil revolution, construction of new refineries in the Middle East and China, falling demand, high energy costs and productivity issues caused by failures to invest in new technology.

 

Whilst, the current controversy over high domestic energy prices, is not only about supernormal profits being achieved by the energy companies, but also the failure of government to actively encourage significant new entrants into the UK energy market. Think tank IPPR said Ofgem's data on customer bills shows that profits in 2013 are 6% and operating costs make up 9% of bills. In a competitive market, it should be about 2%, the norm for supermarkets. In addition, European electricity prices have dropped by a third. Similarly, European spot market prices for gas have made similar declines. See table below, indicates that wholesal costs have increased, while customer bills have increased in the UK.

 

Because of America dumping its cheap coal on the European market, we have seen utilities switch off their gas power stations and instead increased their use of more profitable coal power generation. [i] Europe is planning 69 new coal power plants with a capacity of 60 GW over the next decade.[ii] In addition, UK utilities have made deals with American shale gas producers to deliver cheap shale gas to meet customers heating and power needs, thus helping to improve profit margins further.[iii]

 

Government policy failure to proactively direct investment in sufficient new generating and distribution capacity has also not helped; it means we could be facing third world energy shortages in the coming years.

 

The high cost to the taxpayer of energy subsidies is an urgent problem that also needs tackling and reform. Much is made about Green subsidies and taxes; little is made of taxes and subsidies on fossil fuels. The whole system of energy subsidies and taxes needs reform as it distorts the market and is not meeting its objectives. Generating technologies are still getting help even when there is no longer the economic or the technological case to do so.

 

Another area for reform is government policy on energy saving and efficiency. Government policy is a mess; many new house owners will be surprised that current building standards on energy conservation are at least 20 years behind that of Scandinavia. Vested interests have resisted lobbied against the introduction of the latest in mainland Europe standards. [iv]

 

In addition, for those in the Government to blame Europe is not justified, however, certainly political expedient to do so. The real question that needs to be asked, is why the government has shown little real energy leadership. [v]It has played a passive rather than proactive role in attempts to reform the European energy sector. I suspect it is because energy is not a politically popular topic for MPs aiming to make a name for themselves in politics. In addition, the issues are very complex and very challenging in terms of decision-making. [vi]Perhaps, this explains why we have had over 10 energy ministers in past 10 years. The trouble is the energy sector is a complex and very difficult topic to manage; the current amateur approach is not in the national interest. [vii]We need politicians able to take a more professional approach, this means a minister for energy needs time to learn about the job and be effective by staying in the job for the life of a parliament, just as the European Commission does for its Commissioners. Until we have expert professional energy ministers, we will continue to have a set of dysfunctional energy policies that fail the interest of both business, hard pressed consumers and tax payers.

 See also http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2013_10_29/Britain-s-big-six-energy-bosses-appear-before-MPs-2174/

---

[i] http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Are-Europes-gas-power-generators-turning-into-zombie-companies.html

[ii] http://cornerstonemag.net/the-challenges-of-european-energy-infrastructure-finance/

[iii] http://shalegas.cleantechpoland.com/?page=edition&id=4&id_article=22#page_top

[iv] http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Green-Deal-and-Energy-Companies-Obligation.html

[v] http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Is-Britain's-energy-leadership-failing.html

[vi] http://www.energyrealities.org/content/energy-20-the-art-of-the-possible/erp191852011CC6AB134

[vii] http://oxfordprospect.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/black-swans-bring-new-challenges-to-energy-leadership/

Is Britain’s energy leadership failing?

"National energy leadership requires clear policy around investment to manage risk and investment, and a healthy balance between the market, and the consumer (taxpayer)?"

By: Nicholas Newman

National energy leadership requires clear policy around encouraging investment to manage risk and development, and a healthy balance between the market, and the consumer (taxpayer)?

The question of energy and especially its price has always been a politically sensitive issue. The question, is whether Britain's energy policy is failing? Many would suggest that significant parts of it already have. In fact, until recently, the United Kingdom did not enjoy an overarching energy policy framework; instead it depended on guidance from European energy policies for much of the day-to-day implementation of operational issues. In a sense, what there was of a discernible British energy policy was merely an incomplete jigsaw. What is certainly clear is that successive British governments have failed to demonstrate “responsible” energy leadership.

Some successes

Britain can certainly be proud of its successes largely due to the result of responsible leadership back in Brussels and not here in the UK. Such successes include the ban on old-style light bulbs, the backing of the use of biofuels in petrol, the introduction of carbon trading, the scrapping of ageing coal power stations, together with the introduction of smart meters in homes and energy-efficiency labels on domestic electrical goods. In addition, the introduction of more energy efficient domestic goods has certainly benefited the consumer’s pocket and in the case of cars, has reduced pollution in our cities.

Some disappointments

However, despite these advances there are still grumbles, not only from consumers, but major players in the energy market. From an energy security perspective, the actions taken to encourage investment in renewables, has only had a marginal impact on slowing down the UK’s reliance on imported fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas . [1] [i] In 2010, the cost of energy imports contributed to around 15% of the UK's then trade deficit. University of Lancaster’s environmental researcher Oluwabamise Afolabi, reports that the DTI in 2007 projected that UK natural gas imports will increase to 70% by 2017 and imported coal could be meeting up to 75% of the UK coal needs by 2020.

Certainly part of the reason is that the EU energy policies have not gone far enough in the implementation of its ambitions for a single energy market for the continent, whilst we do have a single market for bananas! A single market for energy would certainly help meet many of Europe's energy security concerns and hopefully facilitate greater competition Europe-wide. In the UK, there is a serious need for more energy suppliers actively competing in the market. At present, for instance the gas and electricity market is dominated by six major players, so it is not surprising we suffer high power prices.

Lack of leadership?

Nevertheless, the current government has preserved the vacuum in clear policy ownership and focused leadership left by its Labour government predecessor. This is demonstrated by the recent fiasco of the U-turn over feed-in tariffs [1] [ii] for solar power [1] [iii] and the failure to encourage investment in insulation for buildings with solid walls. The government’s decisions over feed-in tariffs plunged the rapidly growing job-creating solar power installation industry into crisis at a time of high unemployment. It is clear that senior policymakers made a decision without clearly understanding the full impact it would have on Britain's solar power sector.

There seems to be a lack of leadership being exhibited by ministers on energy policy by many in the governing coalition. We are seeing, increasing opposition in Parliament by Conservative MPs, but also by members of the public towards the government’s ambitious support for new wind power projects throughout the country. In January, 101 Tory MPs wrote to Mr Cameron, calling for onshore wind farms subsidies to be “dramatically cut” – well beyond the 10 per cent reductions already in the pipeline. In addition, there have been protests about new renewable energy projects across the UK, together with concerns about the increasing number of people being plunged into energy poverty due to the shambolic energy taxes and subsidy system. Overall, current subsidies paid out to renewable energy producer’s amounted to some £1.5 billion a year, of which £400 million was given to companies operating onshore wind farms, reports the Telegraph in June 2012. However, DECC reports that renewable energy subsidies are costing each British household around £103 per year and between 2004 and 2010 electricity prices rose by 60% and gas bills by 90%, noted DECC.

At a strategic level investors are increasingly concerned about the sense of drift on energy policy towards new investment by the current government towards various types of generating technology, many large-scale investors are complaining that they are not getting sufficient encouragement to move ahead on meeting the government's ambitious programme to replace time-expired coal and nuclear power stations with new generating capacity from both traditional and new generating technologies.

Failing to identify risks

It also appears that the government appears to be failing to identify and manage risks and plan for such unforeseen events as natural disasters, supply disruptions and wars. There appears to be a lack of long term preparation against supply disruption, this can be seen from the following issues. At present, we have limited interconnector capacity amounting to just under 5% of UK generating capacity, is made up of high voltage undersea power cables linking Britain with France, Belgium and Holland. For energy security reasons the UK needs to double such capacity. Once completed Britain will be better able to balance shortfalls in renewable generation here with imports from elsewhere in Europe.

Then there is the question of gas security, Britain only has 3.3 bcm, equivant to 14 days of gas storage capacity available in theory, reports DECC, and much of that is reserved for storage capacity for other nations in Europe. Unfortunately, there are no reciprocity agreements to such storage capacity that is located in the UK with foreign owned companies at present; I was surprised to learn from an energy trader recently. Though there are ambitious proposals to increase gas storage capacity, given sufficient government support. Unlike France and Germany, which have at least one month gas storage capacity? Currently Britain imports 24% of its gas from Qatar. This apparent lack of direction and foresight can also be seen in the relatively low large-scale electricity storage capacity of only 20 GW hours: perhaps sufficient to replace current UK wind generating capacity for just two hours if the wind failed to blow.

In addition, unlike several other European countries Britain has failed to move ahead with pilot carbon capture projects. The realisation of carbon capture technology could aid Britain in its ambitions to further diversify its current sources energy, as coal is available worldwide in easy to reach commercial quantities including Poland, USA , South Africa and Australia.

There are increasing fears that Britain could face power shortages by end of the decade, unless urgent action is taken to construct sufficient new generating capacity to meet growing demand. I would hate to think Britain consumers will face in the future the prospect of regular power cuts, as is the case of Nigeria today.

We are also seeing a lack of realism, amongst policymakers into the impact of their policies. One of Europe's and U.K.'s ambitions is to reduce reliance on gas imports. Unfortunately, the government’s neglect of creating a proper framework for reducing gas usage for power generation purposes is encouraging a reliance on this fuel source to back up for the variability of renewables. Which could raise interesting energy supply and security concerns for large scale consumers such as hospitals and railways that rely on 24/7 energy supplies.

Since 2004, the UK has been a net importer of gas, as domestic production has declined and the country’s power sector has switched to gas for power generation purposes [1] . Since the winter of 2009, the UK has depended for half its gas needs on imports. Current government policy neglect is encouraging reliance on imported gas to remain at present levels whether imported from Norway, Russia, Nigeria or Qatar. As Britain's reliance on renewables increases we are going to see imported gas-for-power generation purposes providing a backup to wind energy projects when the wind fails to blow, because Britain has not invested enough in sufficient gas and electricity storage capacity and expansion of its interconnection links with the rest of Europe.

Danger of short term thinking

Overall, Britain's energy policy is in danger of suffering from short term thinking, which might be building up new problems for the future that might prove expensive to solve. In other areas, there is much to be proud of, but it is clear much more needs to be done. In addition, there has to be greater dialogue between all stakeholders involved in energy policy so that Britain develops an affordable, reliable and secure energy sector that meets our economic ambitions for growth.

Conclusion

However, the government needs to demonstrate responsible energy leadership and move actively forward on implementing many of its ambitions quickly, such as starting construction on new nuclear power stations, stop dithering on proposed coal and carbon capture projects and encourage investment in new energy storage capacity. Nevertheless, the emphasis on energy policy should be rebalanced more in favour of the consumer and taxpayer, by enabling users near such projects to directly benefit from the profits of such schemes.

---

[1] [i] DECC aims for at least 15% of UK energy mix to come from renewable sources by 2020 if current levels of investment are maintained.

[1] [ii] A feed-in tariff (FIT, standard offer contract or renewable energy payments) is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies. It achieves this by offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, such as home owners, it is typically based on the cost of generation of each technology. Technologies such as wind power, for instance, are awarded a lower per-kWh price, while technologies such as solar PV and tidal power are offered a higher price, reflecting higher costs.

[1] [iii] Solar power is the conversion of sunlight into electricity, either directly using photovoltaic (PV), or indirectly using concentrated solar power (CSP).

---

[1] In 2010, 34 per cent of natural gas demand (371 TWh) was for electricity generation reports the DTI.

Dziennikarz Specjalizujący Się W Energii Jestem dziennikarzem z Oksfordu, specjalizującym się w energii. Piszę o wszystkich aspektach biznesu energetycznego, tj. wydobyciu, produkcji, inwestycjach, rynkach, technologii, regulacjach prawnych i rynkowych, tworzeniu zasad jego działalności, kierownictwie i zarządzaniu.

Specjalizuję się w dziedzinie energii ropy i gazu na lądzie i w wodach przybrzeżnych. Dodatkowo, dla moich klientów korporacyjnych, dostarczam kopie na piśmie. Jestem do dyspozycji (wg prowizji) do wielu różnorodnych prac dziennikarskich. Od 2000 r. jestem wydawcą „Oksfordprospect magazine”, regionalnego miesięcznika biznesowego, gdzie można znaleźć aktualności z dziedziny energetyki oraz przykłady moich prac dziennikarskich na inne tematy. http://www.nicnewmanoxford.com/Dziennikarz-Energii.html

NICHOLAS NEWMAN Energy Journalist

I am an international energy journalist located in Oxford, England with a comprehensive contacts-book of leading energy industry professionals and academics to draw upon. I specialise in the following topics: oil and gas exploration and production together with power generation, including renewables and nuclear.

Much of my energy writing is concerned with trends in policies, risks, exploration and production technologies as well as trading in energy resources. This includes, for instance in the gas sector, all aspects  of  current market policy, political and technological trends and developments that may affect the exploration, production and trading in natural gas, shale gas, CSG and LNG.

In addition, I often have to examine and analyse shifts in the terms of trade between coal, gas and oil as they are affected by structural market changes or opportunities and policy developments. For instance, there is the move towards deeper waters for offshore oil and gas production which is turning countries like Brazil and Angola into energy giants.

A unique contribution of my writing is to provide a geopolitical insight into the emerging energy challenges that face investors, consumers and decision makers. My main asset is my ability to turn clients’ complex and technical and financial stories into compelling narratives. My writing provides a gateway for investors and decision makers to comprehend the often complex issues that face the energy sector in a given part of the world, for example, the recent developments in Kazakhstan.

I regularly  investigate  emerging market demand and supply and how different solutions are being applied to common problems such as, adoption of environmental regulations and laws by Arctic nations’ following  Norway’s lead in exploiting the Arctic Ocean oil and gas resources sustainably. I am well versed in researching, analysing, and sourcing my publications from a broad range of international, national, local and online business press and corporate clients. I am available for both short pieces of 750 to 1000 words and long pieces up to 5,000.

In addition, I have undertaken technology reviews and assessments. Most recently , I have supplied analysis about the viability of Russian government  innovation policies for Engineering and Technology Magazine, a survey and assessment of exploration  technologies for Petroleum Review and an investigation of Australian clean coal carbon capture technology for Power Engineering International.

Furthermore, I have conducted market analysis for investors seeking to participate in the Indonesian and Italian energy markets for Power Engineering International and Oxford Prospect.  I have also written promotional material for such companies and organisations as NES Global Talent, Primafila AG, Centrica, Media Consulta, Net Resources International, Siemens AG and the European Commission. One of my most recent clients has been international engineering recruitment consultants NES Global Talent for whom I produced a set of innovative case studies for their corporate web site.  

Currently, I am  investigating the reasons for the spectacular failures that the global energy sector seems to experience on a recurring basis. For instance, there are  such tactical failures as occurred with BP's Deep-Water Horizon and Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis, as well as  strategic policy failures such as the UK’s  Green Deal Initiative and the first phase of Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme. I am planning a series of “responsible energy leadership” Workshops which are to be held in Oxford, London and Dubai with the co-operation of London's Energy Institute. These three hour workshops will be attended by industry professionals, academics, regulators and policymakers, who will come together to explore the requirements of “Energy Leadership” in situations of crisis and chronic failure. To contact Nicholas Newman